[beezlebroxxxxxx]

There shouldn't be a bonus, just a salary. If the salary is big enough, then you'll get talent. Executive's often fail upwards because they obsess over getting their bonus even when the org is failing or in trouble. The idea that bonuses are mandatory is something executives repeat ad nauseum because it is obviously in their own interest.

With executive bonuses all you get are executives who focus on short term metrics ("how do I maximize the chances of getting my bonus?") over their roles as public servants and the long term sustainability of the organization. Maximizing their chances of getting a bonus might make sense when the metric is profit, or share price, or revenue, because theoretically the executive's interest would align with the employees and the organization. But, when the point of the organization is a public service and disconnected from profit, revenue, or share value, then maximizing the executive seeking their bonus over all else does not easily or really align with public service or the organization's sustainability.

There are many other incentives to working in public service, for one example: public servants in Canada get frankly an insane defined benefit pension. Few people in Canada nowadays are able to get as good retirement benefits. There are also people who have dedicated decades to working at the CBC or in public service. The assumption seems to be that only ~executives~ from some chosen ~executive class~ can run an org, but in fact that is only a relatively recent idea. Choosing someone with proven dedication to the org, and with proven skills in many of the departments of the org, someone who has worked their way up, is probably a far better choice compared to someone from outside who has only private experience. It's also the way that executives were hired or developed for decades before the bonus obsession.